On Dec 25, 2007 1:57 PM, Tim Josling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 20:54 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote: > > > > > In my view, ChangeLog is mostly "write-only" from a developer's > > > perspective. It's a document that the GNU project requires us to > > produce > > > for > > > > ... a good example of compliance with the GPL: > > > > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > > > > a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified > > it, and giving a relevant date. > > > > (Minor quibble) As copyright owner of GCC, the FSF is not bound by the > conditions of the licence it grants in the same way as licencees are > bound. So I don't think this provision in itself would mandate that > those who have copyright assignments to the FSF record their changes. > > I don't hear anyone arguing that people should not record what they > changes and when. The question is whether it is sufficient. > > I just started using git locally, and I keep thinking it would be really > great to have something like "git blame" for gcc.
svn already has blame :)
